🔗 Share this article

A pair of high-profile critics of President Trump secured major legal victories on Monday when a federal judge dismissed the federal indictments filed against them.

For weeks since their indictments, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left the door open for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that possibility after the decision, stating he believes the former president will probably target him once more.

And White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the DOJ confronts steep hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to predict what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an expedited appeal.

Previously, the Trump administration has strongly challenged adverse decisions, taking cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, pledged to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department probably would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and providing false information to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also asserted to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to assemble fresh grand juries and secure new indictments.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a new grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in Comey's case.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to file the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. Nonetheless, the indictment's dismissal would activate a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his legal team said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is invalid, the time limit has expired and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against James and Comey, the judge was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

Judge Currie wrote in the James decision that the AG's effort to install Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

As a result, Halligan had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how individuals can be appointed on a temporary basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's role on future cases against James and Comey, again, unclear.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the press on Monday.